[No. L-4963.

 January 29, 1953]

MARIA USON, plaintiff and appellee, vs. MARIA DEL
ROSARIO, CONCEPCION NEBREDA, CONRADO NEBREDA,
DOMINADOR NEBREDA, and FAUSTINO NEBREDA, JR.,
defendants and appellants. 

1.DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION; HUSBAND AND WIFE; RIGHTS OF LAWFUL

WIFE AS AFFECTED BY THE NEW CIVIL CODE.—The right of
ownership of the lawful wife of a decedent who had died before
the new Civil Code took effect became vested in her upon his
death, and this is so because of the imperative provision of the
law which commands that the rights of succession are
transmitted from the moment of death (Art. 657, old Civil Code;
Ilustre vs. Frondosa, 17 Phil., 321). The new right recognized by
the new Civil Code in favor of the illegitimate children   of the
 deceased  can not be asserted to the

531

VOL. 92, JANUARY 28, 1953 531

Uson vs. Del Rosario, et al.

    impairment of the vested right of the lawful wife over the lands
in dispute. While article 2253 of the new Civil Code provides
that rights which are declared for the first time shall have
retroactive effect even though the event which gave rise to them
may have occurred under the former legislation, yet this is so
only when the new rights do not prejudice any vested or
acquired right of the same origin.
2.ID.; ID.; RENUNCIATION OF INHERITANCE MADE BY LAWFUL WIFE; FUTURE
INHERITANCE, NOT SUBJECT TO CONTRACT.—Although the lawful
wife has expressly renounced her right to inherit any future
property that her husband may acquire and leave upon his
 death, such renunciation cannot be entertained for the simple
reason that future inheritance cannot be the subject of a
contract nor can it be renounced (1 Manresa, 6th ed., 123;
 Osorio vs. Osorio, et al., 41 Phil., 531).
3.ID.;   ID.;   DONATIONS BY DECEASED;   ESSENTIAL   FORMALITIES OF

DONATION.—Assignments, if any, made by the deceased of real

property for which there was no material consideration, should
be made in a public document and must be accepted either in
the same document or in a separate one (Art. 633, old Civil
Code). Assignments or donations which lack this essential
formality have no valid effect.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First

Instance of Pangasinan.    Martinez, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Priscilo Evangelista for appellee.
Brigido G. Estrada for appellant.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
This is an action for the recovery of the ownership
and possession of five (5) parcels of land situated in the
municipality of Labrador, Province of Pangasinan, filed
by Maria Uson agakist Maria del Rosario and her four
children named Concepcion, Conrado, Dominador, and
Faustino, surnamed Nebreda, who are all of minor age,
before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.
Maria Uson was the lawful wife of Faustino
Nebreda who upon his death in 1945 left the lands
involved in this litigation. Faustino Nebreda left no
other heir except his widow Maria Uson. However,
plaintiff claims that when Faustino   Nebreda   died  in
  1945,   his  common-law  wife

532

532 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Uson vs. Del Rosario, et al.

Maria del Rosario took possession illegally of said

lands thus depriving her of their possession and
enjoyment.
Defendants in their answer set up as special defense
that on February 21, 1931, Maria Uson and her
husband, the late Faustino Nebreda, executed a public
document whereby they agreed to separate as husband
and wife and, in consideration of their separation,
Maria Uson was given a parcel of land by way of
alimony and in return she renounced her right to
inherit any other property that may be left by her
husband upon his death (Exhibit 1).
After trial, at which both parties presented their
respective evidence, the court rendered decision
ordering the defendants to restore to the plaintiff the
ownership and possession of the lands in dispute
without special pronouncement as to costs. Defendants
interposed the present appeal.
There is no dispute that Maria Uson, plaintiff-
appellee, is the lawful wife of Faustino Nebreda,
former owner of the five parcels of lands litigated in
the present case. There is likewise no dispute that
Maria del Rosario, one of the defendants-appellants,
was merely a common-law wife of the late Faustino
Nebreda with whom she had four illegitimate children,
her now co-defendants. It likewise appears that
Faustino Nebreda died in 1945 much prior to the
effectivity of the new Civil Code. With this background,
it is evident that when Faustino Nebreda died in 1945
the five parcels of land he was seized of at the time
passed from the moment of his death to his only heir,
his widow Maria Uson (Article 657, old Civil Code). As
this Court aptly said, "The property belongs to the
heirs at the moment of the death of the ancestor as
completely as if the ancestor had executed and
delivered to them a deed for the same before his death"
(Ilustre vs. Alaras Frondosa, 17 Phil., 321). From that
moment, therefore, the rights of inheritance of Maria
Uson over the lands in question became vested.
533
 VOL. 92, JANUARY 28, 1953 533
Uson vs. Del Rosario, et al.

The claim of the defendants that Maria Uson had

relinquished her right over the lands in question
because she expressly renounced to inherit any future
property that her husband may acquire and leave upon
his death in the deed of separation they had entered
into on February 21, 1931, cannot be entertained for
the simple reason that future inheritance cannot be
the subject of a contract nor can it be renounced (1
Manresa, 123, sixth edition; Tolentino on Civil Code, p.
12; Osorio vs. Osorio and Ynchausti Steamship Co., 41
Phil., 531).
But defendants contend that, while it is true that
the four minor defendants are illegitimate children of
the late Faustino Nebreda and under the old Civil
Code are not entitled to any successional rights,
however, under the new Civil Code which became in
force in June, 1950, they are given the status and
rights of natural children and are entitled to the
successional rights which the law accords to the latter
(Article 2264 and article 287, new Civil Code), and
because these successional rights were declared for the
first time in the new code, they shall be given
retroactive effect even though the event which gave
rise to them may have occurred under the prior
legislation (Article 2253, new Civil Code).
There is no merit in this claim. Article 2253 above
referred to provides indeed that rights which are
declared for the first time shall have retroactive effect
even though the event which gave rise to them may
have occurred under the former legislation, but this is
so only when the new rights do not prejudice any
vested or acquired right of the same origin. Thus, said
article provides that "if a right should be declared for
the first time in this Code, it shall be effective at once,
even though the act or event which gives rise thereto
may have been done or may have occurred under the
prior legislation, provided said new right does not
prejudice or impair any vested or acquired right, of the
same origin." As already stated in the early part of this
decision, the right of ownership of Maria Uson
534

534 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Acierto

over the lands in question became vested in 1945 upon

the death of her late husband and this is so because of
the imperative provision of the law which commands
that the rights to succession are transmitted from the
moment of death. (Article 657, old Civil Code). The new
right recognized by the new Civil Code in favor of the
illegitimate children of the deceased cannot, therefore,
be asserted to the impairment of the vested right of
Maria Uson over the lands in dispute.
As regards the claim that Maria Uson, while her de-
ceased husband was lying in state, in a gesture of pity
or compassion, agreed to assign the lands in question
to the minor children for the reason that they were
acquired while the deceased was living with their
mother and Maria Uson wanted to assuage somewhat
the wrong she has done to them, this much can be said;
apart from the fact that this claim is disputed, we are
of the opinion that said assignment, if any, partakes of
the nature of a donation of real property, inasmuch as
it involves no material consideration, and in order that
it may be valid it shall be made in a public document
and must be accepted either in the same document or
in a separate one (Article 633, old Civil Code).
Inasmuch as this essential formality has not been
followed, it results that the alleged assignment or
donation has no valid effect.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed,
without costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason,

Monte-mayor, Reyes, Jugo and Labrador, J J., concur.
 Judgment affirmed.

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.